аЯрЁБс>ўџ :<ўџџџ9џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСM №Пљ,bjbjт=т= ":€W€WЯ()џџџџџџl2222222F      8и ф $FУЖ  (< < < < < < BDDDDDD$y ™`h2< < < < < h  22< < }      < :2< 2< B  < B  Ђ  B22B<  РЁЋЌ…ЁЧFZ  v *BB“0УBљ   ™B  FF2222йTown of Preston Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee Minutes of the Regular Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2007 7:00 p.m. Preston Town Hall 1. Call to Order/Roll Call Joe Biber called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Joseph Biber Michael Sinko – arrived at 7:45 p.m. Roy Beauregard Kent Borner Allyn Brown III Bob Congdon Sandy Ewing Merrill Gerber Gerald Grabarek Dan Kulesza - excused Kristina Gregory – alternate – excused 2. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes – April 4, 2007 A motion was made by Sandy Ewing and seconded by Merrill Gerber to approve the minutes of the Norwich Hospital Advisory Committee (NHAC) April 4, 2007 Regular Meeting as amended. So Voted unanimously. Page 2; 8 lines up from the bottom; Mike Sink should read, Mike Sinko 3. Communications Bob Congdon stated that the Preston Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) requested a Natural Resources Inventory of the Norwich State Hospital property at a Board of Selectmen Meeting, The Board of Selectmen told the CAC that they wanted legal council to advise on it and the recommendation from the NHAC. 4. Attorney Scott Murphy a. Discuss request from the Preston Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) to do a Natural Resources Inventory. Scott Murphy stated that the Request for Proposal) RFP stated that any development will be subject to all existing permitting and approval requirements, existing statutes and regulations and the RFP has not imposed as a requirement any other studies on environmental conditions or a Natural Resource studies. That does not mean the Town could not make that change, but there is a timing concern due to the “clock running” with the State, and the potential effect on the development process because the property already has an enormous barrier to entry due to the environmental condition and cost. There is a tipping point in terms of developer interest that the Town has to be very careful about. This process is voluntary in two respects; one is if the Town decide to avail itself of it and whatever emerges from it is advisory because it does not impose any requirements or change the conditions of existing statutes and regulations. Bob Congdon stated that his concern is timing, the Town does not own the property, and what the State could decide to do with the information while still owning the property. The Town would be better off being in control of the process. Allyn Brown asked if a request could be made to do a study on property the Town does not own. Scott Murphy said if the State was willing to permit the study, the answer would be yes. Bob Congdon stated that an RFP was sent out with particular rules, and if the rules are changed there is a risk of sending a message that this is a “moving target”. Scott Murphy agreed that, that is a legitimate concern Gerald Grabarek asked if this is totally voluntary, what is the down side of having this study done? Scott Murphy answered that not knowing what the report will say it is hard to deal with what the consequences of the report might be. The State could decide there will be additional rules and conditions attached to the conveyance. Kent Borner stated that the CAC has been working mapping all the open space in the Town, looking for ways to preserve land. Every one on the Conservation Commission agreed this study would be a great idea, but our concern was the timing, and also if allowing an environmental resource inventory will that allow someone else to come along and request a much bigger environmental study, which will tie the property up for years. We felt that once we owned the property we would be more comfortable doing an Environmental Resource Inventory. As part of the Development Agreement the NHAC has been very conscientious about open space and access to wetlands. Gerald Grabarek stated that the State would have no problem changing the rules. Joe Biber stated the NHAC has done a lot of work to get to where we are Bob Congdon stated that the NHAC can send a clear message to any developer that the Town is very concerned about the quality of life and environment in our town and the review process will be stringent from site plan approval process. Joe Biber stated he would be uncomfortable sending any signal or impression that we would change any of the rules outlined in the existing RFP. Sandy Ewing asked if this study can be done after selecting a developer and the closing with the State. Bob Congdon stated there are several places this study could happen; it could be negotiated as part of the Development Agreement and Wetlands or Planning and Zoning could require it as part of a review process as they review a site plan, wanting to know the effect on the cove. Scott Murphy stated that it has already been envisioned in the Development Agreement that the developer will be required a detailed conservation resource management and open space plan. Sandy Ewing asked why the CAC brought this forward now. Kent Borner thought the CAC believes it would be a good time to have it done, before the property is developed so if anything sensitive or valuable can be identified now and protected. Ally Brown stated that if this had come up months ago, it could have been written into the RFP. Joe Biber stated that the NHAC put together a very good conscientious plan and from a timing stand point, veering off paths would not be a good idea. Bob Congdon asked if a public hearing is requires as part of Planning and Zoning’s site plan and approval process. Roy Beauregard and Kent Borner responded yes. Bob Congdon stated that this issue could be raised with the developer during the Development Agreement, Planning and Zoning and Wetlands could raise it during their normal approval process, and it would have the opportunity to be raised again during Planning and Zoning’s public hearing. Scott Murphy stated that to sum that up, the urgency in terms of timing is not to create any impediments to a prompt closing under the State purchase and sale agreement, because that’s where the clock is running and either in terms of the time it will take or the findings, that may influence the State’s decision. You run some risks if you do the study up front. If this Development Agreement is modeled on the earlier one, it would include a detailed conservation resource management plan, and if it comes up through that context it’s consistent with the RFP. b. Discuss RFP Receipt and Review Process Scott Murphy stated that no RFPs have been received yet and that is not unusual, usually these things come in right at the deadline which is June 1st. Presumably there will be a great deal of public interest in these proposals so in the RFP it was required that the proposers designate any information that they would make a claim of proprietary or confidential nature as it relates to the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) exception for information in those categories and required that they either produce a copy of their proposal where that confidential information is deleted or they put that information into exhibit so it is separate from the rest of the proposal. The reason for this is if you get a FOI request to review the proposals you receive it will provide a means for prompt access to the non-exempt portions. Bob Congdon asked Scott Murphy if any proposals come to the Town Hall should they be kept sealed and delivered to Shipman and Goodwin. Scott Murphy said he will review all the proposals to make sure that the proposers followed that requirement. Someone requesting those records could contest whether what is claimed by a proposer is exempt under the FOI, but we have made it clear that is a fight the proposer will have to carry on and not the Town. Bob Congdon stated that a way to distribute these proposals to the Committee and come up with a review process is needed. Scott Murphy stated that his office will do a preliminary check, get the information to the NHAC, and send copies to the Town Hall available for any response to FOI requests. These proposal are Part I of a two step process so the review of these responses is designed to narrow down proposals by identifying qualifications, the concept plans, and those best able to meet the Town’s objectives. Under the RFP, a 30 day period was provided for review, so we need a process to check their references, whether the Committee would want to draw on any other resources in terms of review of the proposals to gain advice. At the end of the 30 day period Part II would be provided to those proposers selected in Part I.. Joe Biber asked if the Committee can ask to clarify any proposer’s information during the 30 day review period. Scott Murphy responded that the Committee expressly reserved that right. Kent Borner asked if Shipman and Goodwin’s office would be able to do the basic checks like they are incorporated and do have bank accounts. Scott Murphy responded yes Bob Congdon stated he’s like copies sent to the Town Hall as quickly as possible Scott Murphy stated that his office could have a paralegal do a preliminary review. Ally Brown asked if the Committee should be working on a score card when it comes time for final evaluations. Scott Murphy responded it was put in the RFP a section on Town objectives, which is a starting point in terms of the review criteria. There wasn’t a scoring mechanism provided in the RFP because you may get very different proposals from very different kinds of parties and scoring works better with proposals that are similar. The RFP was designed to go through it in an evaluative way by looking at how the Town’s objectives are met. The review is intended to be an evaluative process, not a quantitative process. The NHAC discussed again the request from the Preston Conservation Advisory Committee (CAC) to do a Natural Resources Inventory and recommended that the inventory not be done at this time. c. Executive Session to discuss strategy with respect to pending legal claims relating to Utopia Studios, Ltd. A motion was made by Allyn Brown and seconded by Kent Borner to go into executive session to discuss strategy with respect to pending legal claims relating to Utopia Studios, Ltd. and invite Attorney Scott Murphy. So Voted unanimously. Executive Session ended at 8:35 p.m. 5. Adjournment A motion was made by Roy Beauregard and seconded by Merrill Gerber to adjourn at 8:36 p.m. So Voted. Respectfully submitted, Roberta Charpentier recorder NHAC Page  PAGE 4 of  NUMPAGES 4 ‡ˆЃЏчдії >Wљ#ЖИп)œ**§+",#,2,˜,™,й,к,р,с,т,у,ч,ш,ђ,ѓ,є,ѕ,љ,ќќќјќќќіяјјќќъъфъъъфъ mHnHu jU 56\]H*6]5\%4Sku‡ˆЃжзх &6CP`q‡ЎЏчАії =њњњњњњјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјјј$a$Я,ј,ўў=>WXЧШƒ r _ Н ЛђW>щЭfQсI_R kvЄ§§§ћ§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ЄФјљ#М_ ц ""œ"K#g%з% &­&Ш&'m'л'Ž)о)п)œ**ž*Ÿ* *+ќ+§+§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§ћ§§§§ћ§§§+",#,2,˜,™,Б,В,Ц,Я,і,ї,ј,љ,§§§§§§§§§ћ§§§ 1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %А i8@ёџ8 NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH <A@ђџЁ< Default Paragraph Font,B@ђ, Body Text5\,@, Header  ЦрР!, @, Footer  ЦрР!љ(:џџџџ4Sku‡ˆЃжзх &6CP`q‡ЎЏчАії =>WXЧШƒr_ Н  Л ђ W > щ ЭfQсI_R kvЄФјљ#М_ц"œKg!з! "­"Ш"#m#л#Ž%о%п%œ&&ž&Ÿ& &'ќ'§'"(#(2(˜(™(Б(В(Ц(Я(і(њ(˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜@0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€š@0€€ 0(((+љ,=Є§+љ,ј, #%+!џ•€џ•€$')'K(U(К(Х(Я(ї(њ(ЂСЧСЧ™ м п ‡Šк№™Ѓ<HPRžЌpћџРФоф9 ? d!f!ˆ!‹!І#А#щ'ю'Ž(—(Ц(Ю(Я(ї(њ(33333333333333333333333џџ Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.doc Stephen Cook-C:\My Documents\NHAC\Town of Prestonmay23.docџ@€Q(Q(А Q(P(љ(0@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡:џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡:џArial"qˆ№афhзкЕ хЕ&чІ!G$№ ДД20dR)2ƒQ№џџTown of Preston Stephen Cook˜јŠ ЃТбО#РOЃ From: "Roberta Charpentier" To: "Charpentier, Roberta" Subject: Town of Prestonmay23.doc Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 10:43:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700  ўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0x˜АМШдрє  4 @ LX`hpфTown of Prestonownownownown Normal.dots Stephen Cookon7epMicrosoft Word 9.0@Є“ж@т щr Ч@vАŽ…ЁЧчІ!ўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0ј hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М ифoGR)э Town of Preston Title ўџџџ !"#$%&'(ўџџџ*+,-./0ўџџџ2345678ўџџџ§џџџ;ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFРЁЋЌ…ЁЧ=€1Tableџџџџџџџџџџџџ™WordDocumentџџџџџџџџ":SummaryInformation(џџџџ)DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ1CompObjџџџџjObjectPoolџџџџџџџџџџџџРЁЋЌ…ЁЧРЁЋЌ…ЁЧџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq